One of the great tragedies of World War II was its utter preventability. In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler spelled out his objectives over a decade before Germany invaded Poland. The key elements of his rein -- the German conquest, the distrust of Communism and Democracy, the scapegoating of the Jews -- were all there in black and white for all to see, but not enough people bothered to read it, or take it seriously. Too many were convinced that Hitler could be reasoned with, appeased, that he was the sort folks could do business with.

Over 60 million deaths later, it was abundantly clear how wrong they had been.

The one lesson that should have been learned from that can be summed up in three simple words, one of the most insightful pieces of advice I've ever heard -- apparently first a Marine Corps pilot, one Major John Christensen.

"Honor the threat."

When someone who doesn't like you speaks, listen. Listen very carefully. For they will often speak far more truthfully than they should. And it is the fool that tries to soften their words, who hears what they wish to hear instead of what is said, who searches desperately for signs of hope and moderation and peaceful intent when there is none.

You want an example? I'm feeling generous. I'll give you two.

Iran is led by a Prime Minister who has a history of ordering and carrying out the executions of his enemies, both at home and abroad. He has been tied to the deaths of dozens, if not hundreds, of Iranian dissidents around the world. He has repeatedly proclaimed his belief in the Islamic version of Armageddon, has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the map, and insists on unfettered research into nuclear physics -- saying it is strictly for peaceful purposes, but meanwhile asserting his nation's right to possess nuclear weapons.

Next example? Hamas has spent its entire nearly 20-year existence devoted to one goal: the destruction of Israel and the institution of an Islamist state over Palestine. Toward that end, they have butchered scores and scores of innocents. They have repeatedly, forcefully, violently rejected the notion of compromise, of negotiations, of a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They sole answer to all pleas, all appeals, all suggestions, is death and more death and more death.

And now that they have won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Assembly and are poised to take the reins of government, much of the world is convinced that this will finally bring them to reason and sense.

As a die-hard comic book fan, who in many ways was raised on superheroes and the ethos they espouse, it pains me to say this, but it seems to be true: so many people have completely twisted Stan Lee's most profound observation:
"With great power comes great responsibility."

To these people, that is prophecy. When someone suddenly finds themselves in possession of power, they suddenly find they also have a proportional sense of responsibility. That the achievement of this goal somehow sates their passions, and they suddenly have judgment and reason and rationality and a sense of obligation to not abuse their newfound potency. In a horribly misguided reversal of Lord Acton's most famous observation, power does not corrupt, in ennobles. And absolute power is positively beatific.

Stan The Man didn't intend those words that way. They were a warning, to those who seek power and possess a conscience. Seek power if you wish, but always be aware of the burden it brings. Keep a firm grasp on your principles, your beliefs, your scruples, your ethos before you achieve your true potential, because they will be assailed as never before.

Another great comic-book writer disagreed with Acton's observation. Jim Shooter once had a character say that it was bunk; power is neutral. It simply amplifies what you already are. If you are petty, you become mightily petty. If you are wrathful, you will inflict that wrath on a much greater scale. And if you are strongly rooted in your sense of ethics and responsibility, you just might be able to resist the temptations and use that power wisely.

Hamas and the Iranian government have never shown any signs of moderation, of reason, of compromise, of being willing to be a part of the civilized world. They have their own selfish, violent goals, and have killed countless people so far in their quest. Now, as both stand on the verge of achieving their greatest acquisition of temporal power (Hamas, in cloaking itself in the garb of semi-statehood; Iran, in possessing nuclear weaponry), it is insanity to think that this victory will deter them from their long-sought and clearly-stated goals.

More than insanity, it is stupidity.

And in a world where stupidity is often a capital offense, it's a folly we dare not risk.

They have spent decades making their threats, and are now on the cusp of being able to carry them out.

Will we honor those threats, or will we convince ourselves that they don't really mean what they've been saying for so long?

I think the person that wrote that article forgets that many of these people don't behave in a fashion which we would consider logical.

You or I would not give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist, nor would we start a nuclear war. But we don't believe we'd go to heaven with 72 virgins if we die as a result, nor do we consider it our holy duty to kill as many infidels as possible, women children and all.

Why does he assume the Mullahs think like we do? It just seems silly to me. Hell, they might think they can give a nuke to some terrorists and get away with plausible deniability. Or that the crazy lefties will prevent any retaliation if they do so. Is that a risk that's really worth taking?

Clear message. The corollary speaks to what being the POTUS does to a man (or could do to a woman). And I am thinking back through our entire history, not just the recent. Too bad so many use the polarized lenses of partisanship to view their demons or heroes.

The article by Barry R. Posen, the MIT professor, is directed more at what we can do in response to a nuclear Iran. Basically, we have two options. Use military power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons or use deterrence to contain Iran once it has nuclear weapons.

The first option, using military power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons creates it's own problems. With Iran having a strategic location at the chokepoint through which most of the world's oil tankers must travel, any attack on Iran would likely stop that flow. The U.S. would have to respond with strong military action on the ground to restore oil shipments. The mess in Iraq would seem inconsequential by comparison with the only hope for relief being either large new pipelines to bring the oil to new Red Sea ports or the complete military conquest of Iran. We would likely need to kill millions of Iranians, which I expect some see as a positive, be we would likely lose many thousands of solders as well.

On the other hand, a nuclear Iran would face total obliteration by nuclear weapons in response to any use and would also be subject to a preemptive nuclear strike from the U.S. or Israel should Iran cross some threshold of readying it's weapons for use.

We now see the wisdom of President's push to develop anti-missile technology. By the time Iran has deliverable nuclear weapons it's unlikely they could reach their target if we share our anti-missile technology with Israel.

It will cost Iran trillions upon trillions of dollars to develop a credible nuclear threat that can survive a preemptive attack and then get past our anti-missile technology. Iran could never rest as it would have to precede faster than the U.S. can develop counter measures.

It might actually be a good idea to let Iran enter a nuclear arms race with the U.S. as it will force them to expend all their oil wealth in a vain effort to reach parity with the U.S. Iran will have to increase it's oil production and ensure it's uninterrupted flow to pay for it's nuclear arsenal, which they dare not use. By mid-century Iran's oil wealth will be gone or not needed anymore and they will have spent their treasure on a useless weapons system.

"Some pundits talk about delivery systems, missiles, and that is a concern, but there is also another delivery system, and that is called Hizbullah, that is an extension of the Iranian government. You combine the Iranian nuclear weapons program with Hizbullah, and that is a pretty nasty mixture."

"With great power comes great responsibility"Stan Lee's most profound observation.
I agree absolutely, but what to do with a work-in-project like our President who is such an incurious leader, and so early on the learning curve.
In January 2003, the President invited three members of the Iraqi opposition to join him to watch the Super Bowl. In the course of the conversation the Iraqis realized that the President was not aware that there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. He looked at them and said, 'You mean...they're not, you know, there, there's this difference. What is it about?'"
- former U.S. dilpomat Peter Galbraith

Only a few weeks ago Dubya was touting ."Democracy was on the march."when everyone with a whit of sense, knew that far from demcoracy being on the march, "Radical Islam was on the march." Now when the results of Administration experiments in pushing democracy are painfully apparent to even Condi Rice we revert back to type, and the big stick approach. This is probably happens when far from having 4 Mullahs in charge of our delicate foreign policy we have 4 born again rooted evangelicals in charge of our country's foreign policy in the Middle East: Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld. Of course their mandate is not to learn from history, such as the British occupation of Iraq "the ungrateful volcano," as Churchill called it after the first World War.. but to change it. But in order to change history you must have a general idea of what you are doing. Typlified by such thinking as"There weren't any good targets to bomb in Afghanistan but plenty in Iraq."-attributed to Rumsfeld, may indeed show American great power, but isn't going to cut it, as great responsiblity to the consequences.

Here's a third example of what happens when you fail to honor the threat. Our troops were poised to take out renegade cleric al-Sadr almost two years ago but were called off the hunt by Bush after al-Sadr promised to behave... and it's al-Sadr's militia that is believed to be responsible for many of the 1300 killed in Iraq over the past week.

"Iran is led by a Prime Minister who has a history of ordering and carrying out the executions of his enemies, both at home and abroad. He has been tied to the deaths of dozens, if not hundreds, of Iranian dissidents around the world. He has repeatedly proclaimed his belief in the Islamic version of Armageddon, has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the map, and insists on unfettered research into nuclear physics -- saying it is strictly for peaceful purposes, but meanwhile asserting his nation's right to possess nuclear weapons. ..."

Meanwhile...

The United States is led by a president who has a history of ordering the indefinite detention and sanctioning the torture of individuals, including minors, many of whom were later found to be bystanders rather than al-Qaida terrorists, and others of whom were tortured into giving their interrogators false information later used to justify the misuse of American armed forces in Iraq. He has disappeared American citizens without trial, festooned the globe with secret prisons that are tied to the deaths of an uncounted number of people, and ordered the secret wiretapping and surveillance of political opponents and God only knows who else (journalists, maybe?). His administration outed a covert agent working on non-proliferation issues, threatening her safety and the safety of everyone she ever dealt with, simply because her husband criticized the political policy of invading Iraq. He has repeatedly proclaimed that the United States is spreading freedom around the world, and that democracies are peaceful, yet his "democratically elected" administration ordered the invasion of a country that had not attacked and did not threaten us. He and his administration manipulated intelligence to justify a war that has killed upwards of 100,000 Iraqis and more than 2,000 U.S. troops, and which has injured nearly 20,000 others. Two-thirds of our troops now apparently believe the mission should be brought to an end (NYT poll today). And he has propped up a dictator in Pakistan, an oligarchy in Saudi Arabia, whom, along with the UAE, he and his family have repeatedly taken money from, and to whom he is now prepared to hand over operational control of 21 U.S. ports (after having thrown open the U.S. southern border to an unlimited hoarde of barely paid corporate slaves. He decries the search for nuclear weapons by countries seeking a deterrent against Israel, which is armed to the teeth with them, while continuing research on next-generation nuclear weapons for our use.

Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld. Of course their mandate is not to learn from history, such as the British occupation of Iraq "the ungrateful volcano," as Churchill called it after the first World War.. but to change it. But in order to change history you must have a general idea of what you are doing.
Posted by: Steve Crickmore at February 28, 2006 09:20 AM

Well said. Seems as though the American public is realizing this too, as the poll numbers below indicate. I can only say that it's about time everyone admits that the emperor has no clothes. Read on....

Poll: Bush Ratings At All-Time Low

NEW YORK, Feb. 27, 2006
(AP)

Fast Fact

The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.

Americans are also overwhelmingly opposed to the Bush-backed deal giving a Dubai-owned company operational control over six major U.S. ports. Seven in 10 Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, say they're opposed to the agreement.

CBS News senior White House correspondent Jim Axelrod reports that now it turns out the Coast Guard had concerns about the ports deal, a disclosure that is no doubt troubling to a president who assured Americans there was no security risk from the deal.

The troubling results for the Bush administration come amid reminders about the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina and negative assessments of how the government and the president have handled it for six months.

In a separate poll, two out of three Americans said they do not think President Bush has responded adequately to the needs of Katrina victims. Only 32 percent approve of the way President Bush is responding to those needs, a drop of 12 points from last September's poll, taken just two weeks after the storm made landfall.

Full Poll: Bush, The Ports And Iraq (.pdf)

Full Poll: Katrina Six Months Later (.pdf)
Mr. Bush's overall job rating has fallen to 34 percent, down from 42 percent last month. Fifty-nine percent disapprove of the job the president is doing.

For the first time in this poll, most Americans say the president does not care much about people like themselves. Fifty-one percent now think he doesn't care, compared to 47 percent last fall.

Just 30 percent approve of how Mr. Bush is handling the Iraq war, another all-time low.

By two to one, the poll finds Americans think U.S. efforts to bring stability to Iraq are going badly - the worst assessment yet of progress in Iraq.

Even on fighting terrorism, which has long been a strong suit for Mr. Bush, his ratings dropped lower than ever. Half of Americans say they disapprove of how he's handling the war on terror, while 43 percent approve.

In a bright spot for the administration, most Americans appeared to have heard enough about Vice President Dick Cheney's hunting accident.

More then three in four said it was understandable that the accident had occurred and two-thirds said the media had spent too much time covering the story.

Still, the incident appears to have made the public's already negative view of Cheney a more so. Just 18 percent said they had a favorable view of the vice president, down from 23 percent in January.

Americans were evenly split on whether or not Cheney's explanation of why there was a delay in reporting the accident was satisfactory.

These are the type of people that the naive in our country, would gladly give nukes to:

Everyone has seen the videos of beheadings that Muslim Jihadis release. You see that during the most despicable acts imaginable, which is the cold blooded murder of another human being, they invoke the name of their deity Allah. This shows that they do not perceive this dastardly act as wrong. On the contrary, this is to them an act of worship. Their compass does not tell them that they are doing anything wrong. That compass is set by the Quran which everyone, including the foolish non-Muslim appeasers respect and call "holy". So in the Muslim mind, what you and I perceive as heinous and evil is divine. Just as you don't consider yourself to be a bad person for eating hamburger [as a Hindu would, as he has a different moral compass], a Muslim can kill the non believers with no compunction and he does not believe that what he does is wrong.
The life of a non-Muslim to him is worth as much as the life of a chicken is worth to you and me. We don't go around killing every chicken we see. In fact we keep them and feed them as long as they are useful to us. But we don't lose sleep when we have to slaughter them. So it is not that Muslims will necessarily go around massacring every non-Muslim. As long as these non-Muslims are useful to them, they are granted protection. In fact dhimmi means protected. The non-believers will remain protected, as long as they pay the Jizzyah "with willing submission and feel themselves subdued."

And since I have already begun "hogging" this thread, one more post that I shamelessly stole from a comment at Blackfive. Gives new meaning to the words coming out of some of those who proclaim "peace":

I "borrowed" the below from Delftsman3, Émigré with a Digital Clue Bat. It hits the nail on the head for me. If you are a true believer of the faith, you are taught to kill all non-believers. How do you get around that? A moderate muslim is like a truthful politician, no such species exists.

"During the training session for maintaining my state prison security clearance, there was a presentation by three speakers representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained each of their belief systems.

I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say. The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a video.

After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers.

When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked: Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels of the world. And, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case, can you give me the definition of an infidel?"

There was no disagreement with my statements and, without hesitation, he replied, "Non-believers!"

I responded, "So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they can go to Heaven. Is that correct?"

The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He sheepishly replied, "Yes."

I then stated, "Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine the Pope commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr. Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven.

The Imam was speechless.

I continued, "I also have problem with being your friend when you and your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Let me ask you a question. Would you rather have your Allah who tells you to kill me in order to go to Heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am going to Heaven and He wants you to be with me?"

Yes, Iraq is a mess right now, but no one can know if invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do without knowing the consequences of leaving Saddam in charge. What we do know is that the UN's oil for food program wasn't working due to rampant corruption. We also know Saddam was bribing officials in France and other nations to gain support to lift U.N. sanctions. Had that happened Saddam would have been free to rebuild his military, and you can bet that if Iran was going nuclear, so would Iraq.

why anyone would believe a cbs poll is beyond me. they already are proven liars so why take any thing claimed by them to be true? no doubt that the "poll" sample was 60% democrat and 30% republican and 10% independent.
a nuclear Iran is an unacceptable risk for the US. we need to remove their threat to us using any and all means available and necessary at our disposal.
if it means using atomic weapons against them so be it. the opinion of the rest of the world is irrelevant. the rest of the world's combined military forces are not capable of defeating the US so their is no need for us to kow tow to anyone else when so large a threat looms against us from a lunatic state.

Mac, here are a few things from "the book". There are many, many more.

[al-Ma'idah 5:51]
Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends.
They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrong-doers.

[at-Taubah 9:29]
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last day, nor hold the forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth from
among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jiziyah with willing submission. And feel themselves subdued.

In this verse Prophet Mohammad is clearly instructing his followers never to befriend a Christian or a Jew. Because if they take a Christian or a Jew as a friend, they will commit a wrong deed and Allah's wrath will be on them.

Here 'People of the Book' refers to Christians and Jews. The 'Religion Of Truth' refers to Islam. So in the above verse Prophet Mohammad is instructing Muslims to fight and torture Christians and Jews (who do not believe in Islamic version of God) until they pay tax to Muslims for their existence. Muslims are also strictly instructed to make the Christians and Jews feel 'subdued'. Allah is truly benign !!!

[at-Taubah 9:30]
The Jews call 'Uzayr-a son of God', and the Christinas call 'Christ the Son Of God'. That is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but intimate what the unbelievers of old used
to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are decluded away from the Truth.

Here Prophet Mohammad is wishing that Allah's curse be on Jews and Christians. And what did the Christians and Jews do for such special favour from Allah ? All they did is that out of respect and love, they called their Prophets 'son of God'.

Thanks for the quotes from the book. My understanding is that when Muslims would conquered some country the residents who were Jews or Christians were allowed to continue to practice their religion if they paid a tax and kept their place as second class citizens. Others were required to convert to Islam or be killed. Jews and Christians were treated differently than others.

Apart from all that, the thing that makes your story about the Imam hard to believe is the following...

You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head in shame.

I just can't see an Imam reacting that way unless he hung his head in shame because he allowed the guards to disarm him, and thus, he was not able to smite you down.

Am I the only person who thinks that Jay Tea's post rolled off the table when he ascribed the Wisdom of Ages to Stan "the Man with Waxed Back" Lee?? The Bible, the Talmud, Milton, Shakespeare, Gibbon and the Plato versions of the same quote might have prevented the sobering thought I had as I read Jay Tea's attributed source: "I am a virtual guest in the fruit cellar of the Bates Motel!"

It's interesting how JayTea's somewhat simplistic analysis is followed by comments from ExDemocrat that are not just more simplistic, but outrageous in their implications, and no one says a word. If I read his comments correctly, ExDemocrat is saying that every Muslim is dedicated to the death or subjugation of all Jews and Christians, and therefore should be treated as a mortal enemy. Every Muslim? And I don't think selecting passages from the Koran makes the point, any more than selecting outrageous quotes from the Bible can be used to prove outrageous points. If what ExDemocrat is saying is true, we might as well start killing every Muslim we see, before they kill us first. Yeah, that'll solve all of our problems.

I also have a problem with constant references to the appeasement of Hitler, as if that one example means we should always meet our enemies with force. I think one can argue that Communist China has a pretty bad record for human rights, and certainly behaved as an enemy to the US for many years. Looking at how relations between the two countries are now, would you say it was a drastic mistake for us not to declare war on China, rather than "appeasing" them? How about the Soviet Union? Did it make more sense to contain them, or should we have done everything we could militarily to oveerthrow their government? This doesn't mean that I think every tyrant can be brought around. It's just that knee jerk references to Hitler, as though he was the only tyrant the world has ever known, are an easy way to justify the use of force, without having to recognize the unique circumstances of each situation. In the case of Hamas, we don't have to love them. But saying they "have never shown any signs of moderation, of reason, of compromise, of being willing to be a part of the civilized world," is somewhat belied by the fact that they chose to take part in the electoral process (which is supposedly one of our goals for the Middle East), rather than just seizing power at gunpoint. This doesn't make them good guys, but even terrorists get tired. I think it's a bit much to say that the only Palestinian governement we'll accept is one that wants friendly relations with Israel. How about engaging them and seeing if we can get them to renounce terror? I think that would do the Israelis a hell of a lot more good in the short run.

I think Jay Tea is on to something. I don't normally like to compare the Iraqi situation to Germany and WWII. But there are some similarities that he has mentioned that do beg for consideration, particularly leading up to WWII. And the Iraqi situation I alluded to is much more than Iraq. The last few months have been pretty much a rude global awakening to the threats of extreme Islam. Funny though, folks like Mark Steyn and Jeff Goldstein predicted this would happen.

I don't see Crickmore as having this right. Democracy is on the march, as I see it. Which is causing some consternation in the Islamic rank and file - leading to planned reactions led by mostly Salafists/Wahabbists. They can stir up the moderate Muslims who would normally would have no reaction to recent events. Reading a few Iraqi blogs gives me the impression that it would have been business as usual except for the exhortations by clerics to react. Iraq is learning how to deal with democracy and religion - and I think it's much more painful for them this early on than it was for America at the same time in history. Be sure to check out Iraq the Model for some unique observations of the rank and file opinions.

And Steve, you were doing OK till the part about the born again Christians ruling the White House. That showed your liberal color really bad. Not to mention that it always makes me think - where would we be if Kerry had won? And I use the term "liberal" without the context of "Democrat". The Demo's would have a much more functional party if they could get the liberals to split off with their own "Liberal" party.

ExDemocrat: I suppose I should like newsmax, since it is run by conservatives and all, but unfortunately, I haven't found it to be as reliable as I'd like. So it's best to take any of their news items with a grain of salt, particularly the ones not found on any other site.

First of all, how anyone can claim that they will categorically not believe anything from CBS, then cite Newsmax as a source, is beyond me (and yes, I realize cubanbob made the comment about CBS, but it appears to be a pretty widely held opinion on this board.) Did you happen to notice that they were basing their story on a source who defected in 2001, but still happens to have access to top secret Iranian documents five years later? Oh, and this source also warned us of the exact day and nature of 9/11, but we've never heard of him until now.

My comment is primarily directed to SCSIwuzzy, however. When I said (speaking of ExDemocrat) "If I read his comments correctly, ExDemocrat is saying that every Muslim is dedicated to the death or subjugation of all Jews and Christians, and therefore should be treated as a mortal enemy," you said (somewhat cryptically) "You're not reading him correctly." Since you didn't elaborate, let me ask how I misread the following statements:

"So in the Muslim mind, what you and I perceive as heinous and evil is divine. Just as you don't consider yourself to be a bad person for eating hamburger [as a Hindu would, as he has a different moral compass], a Muslim can kill the non believers with no compunction and he does not believe that what he does is wrong.
The life of a non-Muslim to him is worth as much as the life of a chicken is worth to you and me."

"So it is not that Muslims will necessarily go around massacring every non-Muslim. As long as these non-Muslims are useful to them, they are granted protection."

"A moderate muslim is like a truthful politician, no such species exists."

Again, I ask, those who are opposed to the war why they are opposed to it and I will not get a credible answer.
-
The following goes for Ottawa too.

"Here in Washington, if any believe America should suddenly withdraw from Iraq and stop fighting al Qaeda in the very place they have gathered, let them say so clearly. If any believe that America should break our word and abandon our Iraqi allies to death and prison, let them make it known. If any believe that America would be safer with men like bin Laden and Zarqawi in charge of Iraq, let them try to make that case." I'm not going to tell you who said this because far to many people see a name and then dismiss what is being said. Ignorant blind bastards.

There is a serious problem in the middle east and it is clearly the fault of the religious hate mongers, the pespots of Saudi and the Irainia and the rife corrupt. (Remember; don't forget how to use the comie against the nazia.)

The false mullaha and muttawa with their fatawas of vendetta and murder and their boots on the necks of the people, well I say "Mule Piss - In the Well. How many people know what Salmon Rushdie represents?

These swine (the Ebilis) have been doing this to civilisation for thousands of years, robbing the caravans etc. and saying it's God's will. The leading sponsor of terrorism in the world, Irainia, is trying to get the nuke. It's sad that if they do we will have to wipe out the whole lot of them. The Persians deserve better than that. So, before these lunatics get the nuke we must take care of them. And the Persians and Arabians under the yoke must do their part as well.

Fortunately for me I die before it gets to Canada and I have no kids, but I truly feel sad for the children of today and the future if this situation is not dealt with. And the greedy, selfish, un-responsible peacenix of today get all the respect they deserve from me which is none ay all. (They can have fun sitting in, singing Coombia as babies burn in the Durfor etc. We'll be wallowing in the concentration camps if we listen to these jerks.) Hypocrits the worst of sin.

Since many people have an attention span of less then 12 minutes (with commercial breaks) I don't suppose they've read this far. (SEE NEXT POST)

If you want to "get it" the Religious Policeman http://muttawa.blogspot.com/ has
the take on this sick condition of the middle east. He has lowered the MOL (Muslim Offence Level) to Elevated.

For those who have an attention span you know what I'm talking about. Learn more at the http://muttawa.blogspot.com/ then make sure your knife is sharp, your rifle is clean and your side arms are fully loaded. Good to go, see you on the field. I'll take the responsibility for ordering the sniper teams to cut these
false Imam out and those who preach hate in their mosques out. (It need not be done at the mosque.) And sleep better for it too.

Ever notice how bile green liberal euro trash democrats and media like to bandy about the words 'morale' and 'principle' while being totally bankrupt of the same said? - Barking Moonpires!

A good example of this is the attack on Donald Rumsfeld. Something about nutrasweet and how he had legislation passed while being on the board of the company that sold the stuff, while others said it caused cancer. I didn't know this and thought about it. Well, 20 years later or so there must be thousands of cancer victims from this nutrasweet stuff, because of the evil Dr. Rumsfeld, right? Well guess what, there are none. And another thing, Rumsfeld was a key writer of civil rights legislation that he worked on with Dr, Martin Luther King in the 60s. So, just what is the agenda of those who attack these kind of people?

The issue is above partisan politics, the defence of freedom and our very lives. Again I ask, who stands to lose from the Patriot Act? - Dishonest people.

As a teenager Paul Martin used to whip rocks at the soviet's embassy. I've got no use for politicians, Statesmen on the other hand have my support.

What political party am I from you may wonder? I am a Maximust. Lets go. Why not?

Some of the stuff I have read here is just right out ridiculous!? Where do you people learn how to do your critical thinking?

First of all power is a double edged sword, of course it can corrupt absolutely and in the hands of the pious be used for incredible good. So absolute power is positively beatific only if you are the one yielding it. Personally giving that much power to a few individuals is just asking for trouble no matter what their intentions.

I agree that one should "honor the threat" - but honoring that threat should only mean diagnosing why the threat exists, that it could be real, if it can be diverted and if not how one defends themself without instigating more of a threat. Unfortunetly those here toteing for a first strike are instigating more of a threat. See if you go into Iran you create even more enemies and that strengthens the enemy. The world becomes a scarier place to live in and the cycle of hate continues on both sides, but in the eyes of morality the one who strikes first is the ultimate loser because the justification is missing and this fact will eventually be its undoing.

Now, threat also comes from somewhere, for some reason. For any person who still believes it is religious based is just deluded. All religions on earth have lived in harmony together during different periods in history. The problems start when there is power and economics mixed into the equation. At that point the religions become tools for such tyrants who don't have any respect except for themselves.

So if the reason for a threat is due to the actions one has executed perhaps actions of an opposite nature can alleviate the threat.
Let me explain with the example of the bully: should a bully continue to push his peers around him to have dominance over the whole group ... hated and feared by the others ... and eventually when he starts losing some control become fearful himself as not to be kicked the shit out of? Which by the way in the long run is inevitable. Or a more sustainable version might be to admit that his actions were wrong and telling his peers he is sorry and will make it up to them. Would he be chased out of the group then? Would he be bludgened to death? No, the reason to hate would be gone and an understanding and communication could build the bridges to a new friendship. My point although idealized somewhat is that violence begets violence and the responsiblity to change that comes with the one who instigates the problem. What is interesting about governments including your own is that once voted out of office such an apology can and will be excepted. What is more so interesting is that America can really help if it had the desire to do so and not just a profit agenda at its core.

Now on another topic...
Jay wrote: Hamas and the Iranian government have never shown any signs of moderation, of reason, of compromise, of being willing to be a part of the civilized world."

Well, as far as Hamas is concerned that is just not true. Sure it is militant, but it wants to secure a peace for its own people. Can you blame them? First a nation is carved from lands where muslims, cristians and jews lived in peace for 800 years together, then suddenly forced out at gunpoint, penned up, resources hoarded from them etc...
Its no wonder the Isrealis are so fearful of retaliation. Remember it was not the muslims who persecuted the Jews in WWII! So now history has brought us thus far, the Hamas has formed and in the last 20 years has built hospitals, schools and hope for an oppressed people. Militants they may be, playing cat and mouse with Isreal and killing civilians as has the Isreal army (violence begets violence) killed palestinian civilians but you cannot say that they are uncivilized because they are constructive for their own people and you cannot say the have no reason - (tell me what you would do in their place?), and you cannot say they do not compromise or be moderate because if that was the case they would not even try to play in the political structure of democracy there which they have by the way just recently won. However it is true that they will not bow down so easily and will work for a better agreement than they are offered by the Isreali State - a solidified territory, a no checkpoint state, a return to the old lines before Isreali expansion and the removal of troops - is it so much to ask!?

In fact I could wager that the type of persons you are, highly nationalistic, fearful, and low in empathy (by the sounds of this thread) are the exact sort of people that make up the Hamas and Isreali leaders to date.

About compromising...where is the compromise in the state of Isreal, where is the compromise in the US? How are you compromising?

To be quite honest I am not familiar with the Iranian government past and situation but do know it is not popular even amongst its citizenry. But an attack would most certainly kill innocents and with the track record of the US in Afganistan & Iraq even the citizens there do not want this!

Recently I have heard that the American military is stretched thin. It is mostly the poor who swell the ranks of the US Army for a chance to prove their mettle, for a chance to have a job and maybe cause they watched too much tv. There should be an enormous manpower available to you. Instead the recruitment is difficult and defections are becoming more common. So the "brass" is indeed in desperate need of people like you. So stop wasting the time of people who want to create a better, equal and truly democratic, peaceful and diversified world and go do your duty!

Basically get off your ass and join your infantry, stand up for your belief and if it comes down to it kill and get killed for it.

This US strike first mentality is a very scary predicament in this world. What the American coup is doing is basically the same thing as Pre world war Germany, making excuses to expand and protect its own interests. Nobody is able to deny that, the justifications are never solid enough. The only difference between WWII is that there is no union of countries strong enough to stop you militarily and for economic reasons not many countries willing to completely shut you out. But it is none the less a sort of WWIII and I think the casualities will be greater than even the first 2.

And lastly don't forget what makes most things happen in our system - the search for profit. You can never understand this world until you look under the surface of every negotiation, every attack, every bit of propaganda! If there was peace in the world imagine how much money weopon manufacturers and shareholders, dealers and technocrates would loose... with it their power!

I really feel sorry for those who swallow the crap that most television, radio, newspapers churn out and leave out and even sadder for those who have never travelled and mingled with other cultures and other people.

I actually can't believe I took the time to write. Sometimes I get the feeling that most writers on such blogs are paid puppets ... some times from both sides (liberals too) ... but how will I ever know? The only thing I can know for sure is when I go out and meet people face to face - I am optimistic because I have rarely come across people who are just hate mongers but in blogs it seems there is a profusion?

I would like to point out that the opening part of this article is factually in error. Jay condemns the appeasers of the 1930's as people who wanted to 'do business' with Hitler, people who thought he could be 'reasoned with'. If Jay cares to look at the defence spending of Britain in the lead up to the war, Jay will discover that this was not the case.

Britain increased her defence spending from around 3.9% of her GNP in 1936-37 to 8.9% by 1938-39. In terms of spending that’s an increase from £183m to £469m. 1937, the period of massive defence spending increases, of course saw the arrival of Chamberlain - the demonised appeaser - to 10 Downing St.

For a group who misjudged Hitler and thought he could be 'reasoned with', this government of appeasers was spending an awful lot on weapons. This is because Jay's claims are incorrect; Chamberlain and Co were under no illusions regarding Hitler. The appeasement policy may have held the aim of talking Hitler down, but it also held the aim of buying Britain time to rearm, so that she was in a position capable of fighting a war.